You are comparing different levels of technology. That is not what
this discussion is about.

Technology has changed from the G1 to the G10. That is a fact and for me, it doesn't make sense to exclude it from the discussion. But from what I see in the rest of your post, it appears you don't really want to exclude it anyway.

And the same advances could be applied to less noise from a lower MP
sensor.

Not all improvements can be scaled back. Even if they could, doing so would throw away the gains in low-ISO performance. And that won't help with the overall sales picture.

Dynamic range is a relatively weak function of pixel pitch.

It is a function and therefore a contributor, though I debate the
'weak' part.

The "weak" part is well-documented.

There is so much complaining about high ISO performance of P&S, but
it does not have to be so. My highest resolution camera is 7.1MP and
I see little reason or use for more in a P&S.

If you are happy, that's all that matters.

The claim of more
detail is reduced in real life. People on here more often complain
of noise, not lack of MP.

That's because the majority want better resolution in good light -- so there is no reason for them to complain (the "silent majority"). BTW, there is no problem with belonging to a minority, except that profit-driven companies won't deliver what you want!!

A 12 MP
camera needs 12 million spaces between the photosites. If that same
sensor has 6MP then it only needs 6 million spaces of the same width
(due to same level of tech), which take up about half the space WITH
THE SAME TECHNOLOGY. That would give us almost half that wasted
space back to photosites

But the technology doesn't always scale back efficiently. Larger photosites require more power and thinner circuitry generates more heat and more noise.

Even if you can scale it back to larger photosites, you are throwing away resolution at low ISO. If you really can live with lower resolution, just set your G9/G10 to G3/G5 resolution, and you'll get better results than the G3/G5. If you process the RAW images using a good NR algorithm before scaling to G3/G5 size, you'll get results that are even better.

The point is that better high-ISO performance
is
already available from Canon, and they've give us the added benefit of better resolution at low ISO. Of course, Canon's high-ISO performance is
not
better than Fuji's, but this is down to different technology rather than pixel pitch. In any case, the difference is less than 2/3 of a stop comparing the F30 to the G 9. And you'll find it's even less for the F50, probably because Fuji wasn't able to scale their technology perfectly. cheers, gkl